Slashdot Log In
Google in Trouble for Suggesting Illegal Software
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu May 18, 2006 01:18 PM
from the we-should-start-a-google-lawsuits-topic dept.
from the we-should-start-a-google-lawsuits-topic dept.
JehCt writes "Google is being sued over the 'suggest' feature built into its latest toolbar. InfoWorld reports: 'ServersCheck, a small company that makes network monitoring software,' is complaining that, 'If ServersCheck is entered, Google generates suggested search terms such as serverscheck crack, serverscheck pro crack and serverscheck keygen which lead to pirated software.' In an apparent public relations blunder, Google claimed to have no way of filtering suggestions. However, Google can and does filter because the toolbar won't provide suggestions for keywords like 'porn'."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Informative)
The exhaustive results of google search is one thing, but making suggestions to illegal activity in the toolbar is taking it a bit over the line.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
If an ad happens to offer free software, the target of the complaint shouldn't be Google but instead the business that is actually breaking the law. That's what makes sense to me.
Google should be able to take the ads down and halt service of those ads if an inquiry is warranted.
Otherwise, I've got a great business plan:
1. Make a piece of shill software.
2. Have your friend start a business that cracks it and offers it throu
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Informative)
To clarify, this isn't Google's AdWords advertising that's under scrutiny. It's the 'suggest' feature of the new toolbar. Similar to what's found here [google.com].
Personally I don't care for the feature. If I'm going to search for something I can type it in myself. If I make a mistake, Google has taught me that spelling correctly isn't as important as it used to be
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess this means a lot of people search for these things. But it's probably fair to complain about Google actually suggesting these search terms.
I personally disagree with this complaint, but I understand it.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with suggesting those search terms? First of all they are search terms. Searching for them isn't illegal. Getting pirated copies is. Second, some of those have dual meanings that are hard to filter. Cracks could relate to things that are not software related, how would the software know the difference? Finally, not every one of those are necessarily illegitimate. Cracks have their legitimate uses. Every gamer I know cracks their single player games that they paid for, so that they don't have to keep the cd in the drive when playing. People with legitimate copies of windows crack them so they don't have to go through the activation process every time they format / reinstall.
DMCA, yeah, yeah...That law needs to be rescinded.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google Suggest is a brand name for a search engine running against a database of collected popular combinations of search terms. It is no more an set of actual suggestions from Google as the term "suggestion" is used in casual conversation than Microsoft Office is an actual "office", or Microsoft Sam and Mary are actual little people living inside your computer that talk to you, or than Mozilla Firefox is a flambeed mammal.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least posting this comment will zero out the effect (no means to undo the mod)
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Interesting)
What will they say to the shareholders when profits go down 80%?
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Funny)
I hope I get mod point s again soon.
I hope I don't get metamodded for moderation abuse.
I hope this comment doesn't get modded down.
I hope that was the preview button.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
this guy sounds like he's taking it a little overboard. but you are correct, google made a mistake saying they couldn't filter them out when they do regularly filter results anyways (china's google for instance?)
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is, I am afraid, incorrect. Google is a US company, and censors according to the requirements of US law everywhere (though in some countries it censors under local laws too, as in the cases of China, France, and Germany). Google.cn, google.de, google.fr, google.co.nz, etc etc, all censor the same results that get censored in the US, complete with the standard DMCA notice, even though the DMCA is not in effect in any of those countries. I contacted Google about this when I noticed it, and they pretty quickly confirmed that this is indeed the case.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what about if those words were being used for legitimate purposes? (Admittedly, I can't think of any legitimate reason most people would do so)
At any rate, I think Google is on the right side trying to remain value-neutral with respect to content as much as possible. They have to respond to pressure on things like pornography sometimes, but if the system is built upon the way people are actually using it, the less they mess with their system the better it should be.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this gains any kind of traction, it will probably lead to the demise of the suggest program. All someone has to do is preform a few actions (create a product, website, preform searches, etc.) and then they can sue Google.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Informative)
They very likely *can't* do that with the product they have today. It is a technically possible solution that Google could impliment, but not one that they are capable of today.
In regards to the pornography, Google probably determined that porn showed up far too often when searching for something unrelated. They likely hardcoded the application to avoid displaying those hits.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is not a legitimate use.
Not in the same category as using a no-cd crack to play a warez copy of a game, I'll admit. But I bet the EULA and/or license for the game forbids you from using such software.
A crack or a keygen may make it much easier for you to run software that you are entitled to use, and using one in such a situation might not (and probably will not) result in litigation, but that does not mean it's a legitimate use.
grnbrg.
Parent
Re:ethicitimacy or moritimacy? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, fine then. I take issue with the choice of the word "legitimate!"
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, yes. They should be able to.
From a business standpoint, I don't see why Google should be compelled to modify their code for the benefit of ServersCheck or any other party who would complain about the behavior of the tool.
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see how this can be difficult. All Google is doing is querrying it's databases for the most frequent search terms that match ServersCheck*. Its kind of hard to classify in what contexts should certain phrases not be suggested. I mean, if I started typing "G4 Cube", it might be perfectly legitimate for google to suggest "G4 Cube Cracks", not because I want to search for craked software for a G4 Cube but because the cases for this machine were known to develop cracks. The word has many meanings, and if you can figure out a way to programatically determine whats ment by a short phrase worth of context, then it has alot more practicall uses then filtering Google.
Keygen, I could see just skipping over for suggestions. Not as many legitimate uses. Of course, that starts down a very slippery slope, especially when you think of things like Google.cn
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No leg to stand on? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the first hit [sharewareconnection.com] using the search terms "serverscheck crack":
Shareware Connection periodically updates pricing and software information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it. Software piracy is theft, Using crack, password, serial numbers, registration codes, key generators (keygens), warez is illegal and prevent future software development.
How would you go about filtering this site? Curious.
Parent
Does that mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is what the article seems to imply, and knowing how Google does things, I would bet money on it.
So, in other words they are being sued for an algorithm that is based on input from people based on their behavior, so of course Google is to blame (bigger pockets and a name than random anonymous joe smoe that actually did the searching).
The thing that sucks is because the 70-80 year old judge that probably cannot do anything besides use a push button telephone is actually going to ponder this for more than the 20 seconds it takes a technology minded person to ponder it.
Its just an algorithm based on user input. Much like searching for miserable failure [google.com]. Google may or may not collectively agree with the result of such search, but they did not dope their search database with the information. It just happened. Shit happens.
Parent
Re:Does that mean... (Score:3, Informative)
If a company is losing lots of money to piracy, that means most of the time that they're charging too much - high school economics has told me more than enough to figure out that charging less means more sales, and the
That's not the way the world works... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, do you see the inherent flaw in letting warez kiddies dictate the pricing structure of your product?
Photoshop must be the most widely cracked software out there, second only to Windows XP (just a guess). It's not terribly expensive - $700 or so, right? - and there are both low-cost and free alternatives (Photoshop Elements, the Gimp, etc.). Does that stop anyone from cracking Photoshop CS? Nope.
Supply and demand dictate the price of your product. ServersCheck and Photoshop CS are not high-demand mass-market consumer products. They're priced accordingly. And since they're used by professionals, there's a return on the investment. Theoretically, ServersCheck will maximize your uptime. My legit copy of Photoshop CS has allowed me to generate thousands of dollars of income for my company (not that I couldn't have done that with the Gimp, but I've been using Photoshop since version 2.51 and I'm pretty set in my ways).
While supply and demand controls pricing, you hope that your product sells enough to recoup your investment in development, distribution, and marketing, along with covering your recurring expenses and perhaps a bit of profit on top of that. If not, you cut expenses. Adobe is a publicly traded company; while cutting the price of Photoshop CS2 might push a few more units out the door, that would come at the expense of profits and perhaps result in a net loss. Cue the shareholder revolt in 3...2...1...
Finally, the whole warez culture is not about being able to use software that you can't afford. It's all about hoarding, the digital equivalent of those ladies who live with 50 cats. It's irrational. Why you would want to hitch the pricing of your product to that sort of thing is even crazier.
k.
Parent
Too Bad! (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling Google to filter those selections is rediculous! If the company doesn't like people supplying cracks/serials then go after the offender... not Google just because they no they exist. I'm tired of all this crap. Pretty soon the MPAA and RIAA will go after Google because they index illegal mp3 and movies. What the hell is wrong with this world?
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]The wonderful thing about the US legal system (Score:3, Insightful)
a. tossed out of court;
b. found totally without cause; or
c. settled because the group/person being sued doesn't have enough legal firepower or deep pockets to fight the case.
I predict that Google, who have just a teeny bit of money, isn't too worried about this one.
Now, if it were say a Linux distro being sued by say a Unix license owner who claimed they had stolen their code, that's another animal, but that's because most distros don't have deep pockets or lawyers to throw on fires for no good reason.
I was wondering when this was going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Since then I've been wondering when the major search engines were going to be sued because they link to illegal content such as child porn and pirated software.
It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if Google does lose you can surly expect to see others joining in against them and others due to the precedent it sets.
Re:I was wondering when this was going to happen (Score:3, Informative)
That's too broad of an interpretation, I believe. The specific law, as I recall, involved made it illegal to distribute certain kinds of information (which they should have found unconstitutional, but that's another problem), and they found that linking to the information violated that law. I'm pretty sure the court in that case did not articulate a general rule that it is categor
Why are they suing Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why are they suing Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats like charging someone with a crime because he knows where the neighborhood crackhouse is.
Parent
Play with this feature w/o the toolbar (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Play with this feature w/o the toolbar (Score:3, Interesting)
They're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh it's google so sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
He's trying to get Google to change the Suggest results. Van Laere uses Google's tool for analyzing Web traffic and found that about 93 percent of ServerCheck's customers come to their Web site by way of the popular search engine.
"We don't have any problems with the fact that in Google you can find illegal copies of our software," Van Laere said. "There are people who will never buy the product at the end of the day.
So they really weren't harmed, they just want some google cash! I noticed they refiled the suit. Did the first one get thrown out? Why is litigation always the first thing companies do? It seems they can't try just working out their differences by communication. If 93 percent of your customers are coming by way of google, do they really want to have the term servercheck blocked? They can block porn because it's an input term, not an output suggestion. See the difference?
Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hint: if the most common search phrases (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Common Carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC
So why is Google filtering the stuff?
Or would they not be common carrier?
Fundamental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Aggregated information is just that: information. It is not owned or copyrighted by anyone. The judge should simply rule that Google is not the one to sue, because they do not own the fact that 1000 people searched for this result.
No worries. (Score:5, Insightful)
Common problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for kicks I tried the following queries:
Photoshop
Paintshop
Autocad 2005
3d Studio Max
Fruity Loops
Windows 2000 Pro
Office 2003
Soundforge
*All* of them resulted in illicit entries appearing in the suggestions box.
that's crazy talk! (Score:5, Funny)
I read the posts, and no one is making this point (Score:5, Insightful)
Google shouldn't have to filter a damned thing.
Software to crack your own property is morally proper, no matter what laws the rich bastards have purchased. The "license to use, but you don't own this disk or the software" idea is manure. You buy it, you own it. That's how physical transactions work. An author of a book doesn't get to tell you how to read, store, or dispose of the book after you purchase it. Well, right now he can't. Wait a couple of years.
This is how people lose faith in the law. Make enough stupid, vicious laws to make powerful people happy, and soon no one respects the law, since they KNOW it's a scam to make powerful wealthy people happy.
I'm starting to see the end of the internet as we've known it. It's turning into corporate-controlled 21st century TV, complete with vice squads and corporate private cops busting people.
Time to start building encrypted darknet transmission systems, kids. The dark times are starting.
Fitlering different things (Score:4, Insightful)
This company's going to get shot down if they face Google in court. Their example of filtering is the opposite of what they're complaining about. They give an example of Google not offering suggestions for "sex", which means Google is filtering the input keywords. They then complain that Google doesn't exclude "servercheck keygen" from the result set for "servercheck", which would involve filtering the output set. Google's response will be, quite properly, "Yes, we can look at keywords and not offer any suggestions for a certain set of keywords. But that's not what you're asking. You're asking for us to filter the set of suggestions returned for potentially any set of keywords and remove certain suggestions but not others. And what criteria do we use to decide what's legitimate? "keygen" is entirely legitimate as a keyword for software to let authors generate license keys to issue to buyers of their own software, after all.".
A very simple solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Should Google Filter Anything? (Score:4, Informative)
Nation X: "We don't want our nation mentioned in the same search results as 'democracy'! "
Religion X: "We don't want our religion mentioned in the same search results as 'evolution'! "
To paraphrase that great thinker, Yoda, "Once you start down the path of filtering, forever will it dominate your destiny."
Or was it "Start down path the filtering of once you, destiny dominate it forever your will." Something like that. But then he said a lot of stupid stuff when he was drunk.
Re:Can they filter? (Score:3, Insightful)
"ServersCheck Crack Me Up"
I know it's silly, but it's a legitimate search with serverscheck that has the word crack in it. So now I could not see a site that, say, legally criticized the ServersCheck company?
I can see why "keygen" is tough, because I can't think of many legitimate uses for either that, or warez or something... but really, while they may HAVE the tech to monitor and filter, tha
Re:Seems Fair (Score:3, Insightful)
What ServersCheck is asking Googles is to stop suggesting that people search for Serverscheck crack, when they were possibly trying to just search for ServersCheck.
The specific terms are irrelevant. ServerCheck is asking Google to make an exception to their algorithm, which says most people who entered "ServersCheck" were looking for a link to a product called "ServersCheck Crack." So what if most people entering "Word" are looking for a link to "MS Word" according to their algorithm? Would it be fair f